Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

Hardly an unreasonable fear.
There are plenty of tragedies to cite showing their danger in the wrong hands.

Presumably the reason that people carry guns in public is because they have a fear of other peoples' guns...is that an unreasonable fear of guns as well?

Because again, the answer to guns is ... MORE guns. The only way to stop your guy with a gun is my guy with a gun.

Not hard to see where that leads. And where it already has.

So, I should let your guy with a gun just go ahead and kill me. Groovy.

If that's as far as you can think it through, hey....

There's only so much you can say to those going

 

[koshergrl]

And continually saying they're threatening "mothers" who are innocently gathering...completely untrue.

 

[idb]

I'm a real hit at parties.
I have lost count. I'm guessing more than 8 and less that 20.

My doctor noticed that I have five penises.
He asked me how my trousers fit and I replied "Like a glove".

I know some women who have WAY more than that. Which one(s) get used are a matter of choice. Just sayin'.

I really only need one to keep me happy.

 

[koshergrl]

Because again, the answer to guns is ... MORE guns. The only way to stop your guy with a gun is my guy with a gun.

Not hard to see where that leads. And where it already has.

So, I should let your guy with a gun just go ahead and kill me. Groovy.

If that's as far as you can think it through, hey....

There's only so much you can say to those going

Yet another logical fallacy ^^^^

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't matter. If open carry is legal in that state, they violated no law.

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

Well I say they are influenced by the media and those who are for banning guns. They have bought into it hook line and sinker.

Listen their talking points, brandishing, drawing guns and intimidation. Vilifying the protesters as if they are the bad people and to make them the problem, not people who are the real villains, who brake the law by using guns.
All of these words are used to evoke emotion and sways your thinking into everyone who owns a gun has the potential of being a killer. When that is far from the truth.

You're saying everyone who owns (or has in his hand) a gun does not have the potential of being a killer?

How about someone with a knife? Bomb? Poison?

A lot of dead bodies are going to be really surprised at this...

 

[Ernie S.]

I would have preferred a society where the presence of an armed citizen putting a killer down isn't necessary. Pick up after your emotional dog droppings.

What the ****???? Can't you answer a question without the constant air of superiority bullshit?

How the **** do you get "superiority" out of that??

The poster posited a premise that was leading and inaccurate -- I corrected him.

What the ****, I can't answer a simple question?? You'd prefer I sit down, shut up and offer no response to bullshit about me -- on a message board??



I desire a world without the fetish on guns and violence. That's no secret. I said so here, I said so throughout this website, and I've said it since the day I got here.
What the wide world of **** is wrong with that?

YOU are the one dropping the turds of emotion here, possum. You are arguing that the motive of these men was to intimidate, but the women who seek to limit their constitutional rights are, what? completely logical in claiming to be intimidated?

I don't have any evidence that your strawman in part 2 is accurate, but in any case NO -- a discussion around a restaurant table is in no way comparable with twenty people with guns outside the window. NO.

As for the logic of intimidation, see, agan, Aurora, Sandy Hook, DC, Powell, Oak Creek, Webster, Lancaster, Kileen, Binghamton, San Diego, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, San Ysidro, Edmond, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Iowa City, Olivehurst, San Francisco, Garden City, Jonesboro. Atlanta, Fort Worth, Honolulu, Wakefield, Santee, Meridian, Red Lake, Salt Lake, Omaha, DeKalb, Fort Hood, Manchester, Austin, Seal Beach, Oakland, Minneapolis, Brookfield, Santa Monica, DC (again) Columbine...

YOU keep bringing up "children" and "loaded" for no purpose at all except to sway emotional opinion to your side.
How ******* disingenuous can you possibly be?

Once again -- what's 'disingenuous' here? The group has been described as "nuts". I would say bringing children into a cache of weapons for no other reason than to make a political point, qualifies them as "nuts". As for the emotion, you tell me what you'd be posting right now if one of those kids had gotten shot accidentally in a situation they didn't have to be placed in. You tell me, Ernie.

First question: Had you included the whole quote, the answer would be apparent, even to you.
Next point. No. It is plain to all involved in this discussion (save you) that you either cannot answer a direct question, or that you feel such questions are beneath you. Again, your imagined superiority is showing. Perhaps a different hair style?

As to the sites of mass shootings you mention: Straw men, all. In no case was the intent of the shooters a protest against a group seeking to infringe their Constitutional rights.

I was going to go on, but I don't see the point. You will continue to dismiss counter argument because you are certain you have all the answers.

I sincerely hope you never have to defend yourself or a loved one from rape or robbery, Possum.
If you do, I hope the hell that there is a man with a gun close by to do for you what you refuse to do for those that depend upon you.

 

[Pogo]

And continually saying they're threatening "mothers" who are innocently gathering...completely untrue.

They're not mothers?

Hmmm.... this changes everything.

 

[koshergrl]

No, they're not being threatened.

And they were gathering in order to gain support to remove the rights of an unrepresented group.

 

[koshergrl]

I was going to say it's really annoying when people pretend to be stupid in order to move goalposts and divert attention from the actual discussion...

then I realized...dodo isn't pretending. This really is the best he can do.

 

[Ernie S.]

How many penises does he have?

Pogo has just the one protruding from his neck.

A face lift will do that to you. And that hole in his forehead is his belly button~!

Not his belly button. More likely the end of his vas deferens.

 

[idb]

Doesn't matter. If open carry is legal in that state, they violated no law.

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

Well I say they are influenced by the media and those who are for banning guns. They have bought into it hook line and sinker.

Listen their talking points, brandishing, drawing guns and intimidation. Vilifying the protesters as if they are the bad people and to make them the problem, not people who are the real villains, who brake the law by using guns.
All of these words are used to evoke emotion and sways your thinking into everyone who owns a gun has the potential of being a killer. When that is far from the truth.

All sides in an argument use hyperbole and emotion to make their point.

Only one side of this argument is carrying weapons.
Whether you think it's fair or not, that means that they have to be more careful about how they present their case.
I'm suggesting that presenting their weapons in response to a peaceful meeting of concerned mothers is counter-productive and is fodder for the other side's case.

 

[peach174]

More Exposure to guns is what they needed.
When people are never around guns and know nothing about them they have unreasonable fears of guns.

Hardly an unreasonable fear.
There are plenty of tragedies to cite showing their danger in the wrong hands.

Presumably the reason that people carry guns in public is because they have a fear of other peoples' guns...is that an unreasonable fear of guns as well?

Because again, the answer to guns is ... MORE guns. The only way to stop your guy with a gun is my guy with a gun.

Not hard to see where that leads. And where it already has.

It's one bad guy with a gun who wants to kill or harm many.
Against many law abiders who each have a gun.
If a bad guy sees 10 guns or more pointed at him, he is pretty much going to be influenced into to setting that gun down peacefully.

 

[Ernie S.]

Marty; Ernie; Spoonman; Lonestar; BigReb; Pothead; Koshergrrr; Peach.. I count eight posters I'm trying to keep up with (good thing I'm a fast typist) but I think the points have been addressed. Important as the issue is, I've got other things to attend to, and I'm well aware that posters here will argue not because they believe in a position but just to argue (e.g. see the Thanksgiving thread where the poll runs 94 to 6 and yet they yammer on), so thank you all for interesting discussion, your points and your passion. It's all good.

A concession! It's about time!

Qualified with a compliment to himself, of course.

"Concession" to what?

Sunshine's here so that's nine posters I'm answering. Just saying there's only one of me so I can only do so much.

But I am observing that I'm getting nothing but the same old rehashed arguments with their questions unanswered and a lot of empty ad hominem about penises and face lifts, so that tells me something about who's armed with what.

I can't say I'm not flattered that it takes nine of you though...

What you fail to realize is that you are NOT winning. You are not defending yourself effectively other than in your own mind.
You are deflecting, tap dancing and acting all quite superior, but the truth is, you know you've fallen on your face but are either to proud or too stupid to admit it.
I happen to know that you are not stupid.

Man up. Time to get honest here, sir.

 

[idb]

No, they're not being threatened.

And they were gathering in order to gain support to remove the rights of an unrepresented group.

Why with loaded weapons?

 

[koshergrl]

You're wrong. People who are horrified of guns because they have never been exposed to them except in the context of criminal attack, need to see that the people who carry guns for protection are not their enemy. They are not the slobbering idiotic fools that the leftist douchebags pretend they are. They are family men and women, and they are responsible and intelligent.

And there are a LOT of them. Gun-grabbing loons like to pretend they are the majority. But they really aren't.

 

[koshergrl]

No, they're not being threatened.

And they were gathering in order to gain support to remove the rights of an unrepresented group.

Why with loaded weapons?

They're SUPPOSED to be loaded.

Cripes you people are stupid.

Guns are NO use if they are not loaded, what do you not understand about that?

 

[Pogo]

What the ****???? Can't you answer a question without the constant air of superiority bullshit?

How the **** do you get "superiority" out of that??

The poster posited a premise that was leading and inaccurate -- I corrected him.

What the ****, I can't answer a simple question?? You'd prefer I sit down, shut up and offer no response to bullshit about me -- on a message board??



I desire a world without the fetish on guns and violence. That's no secret. I said so here, I said so throughout this website, and I've said it since the day I got here.
What the wide world of **** is wrong with that?



I don't have any evidence that your strawman in part 2 is accurate, but in any case NO -- a discussion around a restaurant table is in no way comparable with twenty people with guns outside the window. NO.

As for the logic of intimidation, see, agan, Aurora, Sandy Hook, DC, Powell, Oak Creek, Webster, Lancaster, Kileen, Binghamton, San Diego, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, San Ysidro, Edmond, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Iowa City, Olivehurst, San Francisco, Garden City, Jonesboro. Atlanta, Fort Worth, Honolulu, Wakefield, Santee, Meridian, Red Lake, Salt Lake, Omaha, DeKalb, Fort Hood, Manchester, Austin, Seal Beach, Oakland, Minneapolis, Brookfield, Santa Monica, DC (again) Columbine...

YOU keep bringing up "children" and "loaded" for no purpose at all except to sway emotional opinion to your side.
How ******* disingenuous can you possibly be?

Once again -- what's 'disingenuous' here? The group has been described as "nuts". I would say bringing children into a cache of weapons for no other reason than to make a political point, qualifies them as "nuts". As for the emotion, you tell me what you'd be posting right now if one of those kids had gotten shot accidentally in a situation they didn't have to be placed in. You tell me, Ernie.

First question: Had you included the whole quote, the answer would be apparent, even to you.

I'm not aware of having omitted anything...

Next point. No. It is plain to all involved in this discussion (save you) that you either cannot answer a direct question, or that you feel such questions are beneath you. Again, your imagined superiority is showing. Perhaps a different hair style?

That isn't even a question. You accused me of "superiority" because I corrected another posters suggestion. There's no explanation of how answering that poster amounts to "superiority" and in any case IT'S NOT A QUESTION.

As to the sites of mass shootings you mention: Straw men, all. In no case was the intent of the shooters a protest against a group seeking to infringe their Constitutional rights.

Not straw men at all -- they really happened. And you know they happened, since I merely listed a list of locales and never said what they represent. I didn't have to; you already know.

But here's the strawman: all those mass shootings have nothing to do with the intent of OCT in showing up. They have to do with what it looks like when you look out your restaurant window and see strangers opening up guns.

Come on Ernie, don't play dumb. It's beneath you.

I was going to go on, but I don't see the point. You will continue to dismiss counter argument because you are certain you have all the answers.

So wtf is the point of asking a question if you're not going to permit an answer??
Here we're back to again. In any debate you're going to have to accept the fact that what comes back to your question might not be what you want to hear.

I sincerely hope you never have to defend yourself or a loved one from rape or robbery, Possum.
If you do, I hope the hell that there is a man with a gun close by to do for you what you refuse to do for those that depend upon you.

And I hope the hell that's not necessary, because if such desperate measures are ever needed I'm living in a world I want no part of. And rest assured, there's nothing I refuse to do for those that depend on me. That's dishonest as hell and you have no right to slur me with your preconceptions that I don't happen to agree with.

Again, you're going to have to accept the fact that not everybody shares your views and values. That's just the way it is.

Anything else?

 

[idb]

You're wrong. People who are horrified of guns because they have never been exposed to them except in the context of criminal attack, need to see that the people who carry guns for protection are not their enemy. They are not the slobbering idiotic fools that the leftist douchebags pretend they are. They are family men and women, and they are responsible and intelligent.

And there are a LOT of them. Gun-grabbing loons like to pretend they are the majority. But they really aren't.

Exactly.
So, how does it help your argument that gun-owners are 'family men and women, and they are responsible and intelligent' when they bring out their weapons, not for protection, but to confront a clearly unarmed and peaceful gathering of mothers?
Where's the need for protection there?

 

[Pogo]

No, they're not being threatened.

And they were gathering in order to gain support to remove the rights of an unrepresented group.

Why with loaded weapons?

They're SUPPOSED to be loaded.

Cripes you people are stupid.

Guns are NO use if they are not loaded, what do you not understand about that?

-- And what do guns do, when they're used?

They shoot.

So if this is a group of saintly good citizens going to a restaurant where they know Mothers Against Gun Violence is meeting........

............. WHAT are they intending to shoot?

Again, the questions that can't be answered....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

That is really stupid. The gun owners had as much right to gather as those opposed had. You seriously need a life.

Read what I said before you get all steamy.
I'm not arguing with you that they had a legal right.
Sheesh!

An old lady was pulled over for speeding she handed the officer her DL, insurance and CHL.

The officer asked if she was carrying and she said yes she was. She said she had a .45 in her purse, a .40 in the glove box and a .38 in the console.

The officer ask her what she was afraid of and her reply was "not a damn thing".

We don't carry out of fear, we carry to protect ourselves and others.